This article outlines the Australian legal position relevant to minors and the commencement of hormone treatment for Gender Dysphoria (GD). It traces the significant Australian legal developments in this field and compares the Australian jurisprudence with recent English caselaw. In Quincy Bell and Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Ors, the English High Court held that minors below 16 years are not likely to have the requisite competency to lawfully consent to the commencement of puberty suppressing drugs. The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned this decision, but there are important aspects of the High Court’s reasoning that warrant further analysis, particularly some of the underlying reasoning about the nature of GD as a condition and its treatment. This article highlights several common themes when comparing the High Court’s reasoning in Bell with Australian jurisprudence and highlights how the Australian position has advanced significantly since the first Australian cases in this field were decided. This comparison shows that the Australian perspective is important in demonstrating how judicial views can advance over time alongside a deeper understanding of GD, its treatment, and the broader impact of a requirement to involve the court in such cases. It is concluded that the Australian perspective should be considered in future English cases.

中文翻译：

---

跨性别和性别多元化青年寻求法院批准开始激素治疗的要求：澳大利亚判例与英国贝尔案判决的比较

本文概述了澳大利亚与未成年人相关的法律立场以及针对性别不安 (GD) 的激素治疗的开始。它追溯了澳大利亚在这一领域的重要法律发展，并将澳大利亚的判例与最近的英国判例法进行了比较。在 Quincy Bell and Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Ors 一案中，英国高等法院裁定，16 岁以下的未成年人不太可能具备合法同意开始使用青春期抑制药物的必要能力。上诉法院随后推翻了这一决定，但高等法院推理的一些重要方面值得进一步分析，特别是关于 GD 作为一种疾病的性质及其治疗的一些潜在推理。本文强调了将高等法院在 Bell 案中的推理与澳大利亚判例进行比较时的几个共同主题，并强调了自该领域的第一起澳大利亚案件判决以来澳大利亚的立场有何显着进步。这种比较表明，澳大利亚的观点对于证明司法观点如何随着时间的推移而进步以及对 GD 及其处理的更深入理解以及要求法院参与此类案件的更广泛影响非常重要。得出的结论是，在未来的英国案例中应考虑澳大利亚的观点。这种比较表明，澳大利亚的观点对于证明司法观点如何随着时间的推移而进步以及对 GD 及其处理的更深入理解以及要求法院参与此类案件的更广泛影响非常重要。得出的结论是，在未来的英国案例中应考虑澳大利亚的观点。这种比较表明，澳大利亚的观点对于证明司法观点如何随着时间的推移而进步以及对 GD 及其处理的更深入理解以及要求法院参与此类案件的更广泛影响非常重要。得出的结论是，在未来的英国案例中应考虑澳大利亚的观点。